292 Pa. Super. 149 - Commonwealth v. Aldinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the defendant has been convicted of another crime; or (2) the conduct of the defendant indicates that it is likely that he will commit another crime if he is not imprisoned; or (3) such a sentence is essential to vindicate the authority of the court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 342 Pa. Super. 355 - Commonwealth v. Perry · 456 Pa. Super. 498 - Commonwealth v. Cappellini

2. “The Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Riggins, supra, made clear that a trial court at the time sentence is imposed, must articulate the reasons for the imposition of its sentence. In Commonwealth v. Kostka, 475 Pa. 85 , 379 A.2d 884 (1977), the same court mandated that such statement of reasons, or at least the record of the sentencing proceeding itself, must reveal that the court considered and accorded weight to the statutory guidelines set forth in the Sentencing Code. Id., 475 Pa. at 91-93 , 379 A.2d at 887-88 . The requirements of Riggins and Kostka are equally applicable when a court imposes sentence following the revocation of probation. Commonwealth v. Plutko, 286 Pa.Super. 400 , 428 A.2d 1390 (1981); Commonwealth v. Cappiello, 284 Pa.Super. 476 , 426 A.2d 146 (1981); Commonwealth v. Steward, 276 Pa.Super. 64 , 419 A.2d 96 (1980); Commonwealth v. DeLuca, 275 Pa.Super. 176 , 418 A.2d 669 (1980); Commonwealth v. Mallon, 267 Pa.Super. 163 , 406 A.2d 569 (1979); Commonwealth v. Reggie, 264 Pa.Super. 427 , 399 A.2d 1125 (1979); Commonwealth v. Cottle, 260 Pa.Super. 85 , 393 A.2d 1024 (1978). Thus, at the time the trial judge imposes sentence following the revocation of probation, he or she must articulate on the record the reasons for the particular sentence imposed, and those reasons, “. . . should reflect the judges consideration not only of those sentencing criteria enumerated in the Sentencing Code . . . but also the circumstances of the offense and the character of th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 300 Pa. Super. 372 - Commonwealth v. Gaus